IMPORTANT POINT
When despite knowledge of the correct address, a communication is sent to a wrong address, it is no communication.

JUDGMENT

Harjit Singh Bedi, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent, S.P. Singh, an officer of the 1973 batch of the Indian Revenue Service, was posted as Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Bhopal in May 2005. He filed an application dated 10th May, 2005 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1st September, 2005, on having completed 30 years of qualifying service. On 30th June, 2005 the respondent was relieved from Bhopal and posted as Commissioner (Appeals) at Hyderabad. He accordingly handed over charge at Bhopal on 20th June, 2005 but as the officer holding the post at Hyderabad had not been likewise relieved, the respondent’s transfer order was stayed and a request was made by him seeking a suitable posting pursuant to his request for voluntary retirement. Vide communication dated 25th August, 2005 sent to the respondent at his residential address H. No. 226 Sector 15-A, NOIDA, he was asked to deposit some outstanding dues so that his request for retirement could be finalized. Quite to the contrary, however, on 9th September, 2005, the respondent received an order dated 30th August, 2005 placing him under suspension and fixing his Head Quarters at Aurangabad and by another order dated 31st August, 2005 his request for voluntary retirement was also declined. An order dated 16th September, 2005 was subsequently issued whereby he was directed to be attached to Bhopal for the purpose of receiving payment of his subsistence allowance. The orders dated 30th August, 2005 and 16th September, 2005 were challenged by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” ). Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that as the three months’ notice period for voluntary retirement had expired on 31st August, 2005 and the order of suspension had not been communicated nor received by him till that date it was to be deemed that the voluntary retirement had become effective and as such permission to retire could not be withheld thereafter, in the light of Rule 48(1)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter called the “Rules”). It was further contended that the letter dated 30th August, 2005 had been sent to Nagpur for further onward transmission to Bhopal and it was only on 2nd September, 2005 that the suspension order had been issued to the respondent’s residential address in NOIDA, (a fact which was in the knowledge of the Department) and had been received by him on 9th September, 2005. It has accordingly been submitted that the date of communication of the order being 2nd September, 2005, the respondent could not have been suspended thereunder as his three months’ notice seeking voluntary retirement had expired on 31st August, 2005 and he was thus deemed to have retired w.e.f. 1st September, 2005. It has accordingly been submitted that the order dated 30th August, 2005 was, therefore, ineffective in law.

3. The Union of India in its reply has opposed the pleas raised by the respondent and has submitted that as the order of suspension had been dispatched before 31st August, 2005 to Nagpur and thereafter transmitted to Bhopal it was deemed to have been made effective from 30th August, 2005 itself, and as such the respondent was deemed to be under suspension.

4. The Tribunal in its order dated 22nd February, 2006 examined the matter in the background of the Rules and the dictionary meaning of the word “Communication” and the ratio of several judgments of this Court, Hari Kishan vs. State of Maharashtra,1 AIR 1962 SC 911, State of Punjab vs. Amar Singh Harika,2 AIR 1966 SC 1313, State of Punjab vs Sodhi Sukhdev Singh,3 AIR 1961 SC 493, and Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab,4 AIR 1963 SC 395 and observed that an order had to be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order so as to make him bound by it. The Tribunal then examined the import of the judgment in State of Punjab vs. Khemi Ram,5 AIR